If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Voter fraud at 2012 election

I can't quote the source but thought it was interesting...

Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.

Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).

* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).

* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.

* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.

* The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

* Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.

* In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

As each state reported their final election details, the evidence of voter fraud is astounding. Massive voter fraud has been reported in areas of OH and FL, with PA, WI and VA, all are deploying personnel to investigate election results.

Here are just a few examples of what has surfaced with much more to come.

* In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).

* In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility).

* In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters.

* In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.

* The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout.

* Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout.

* In Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters.

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Imagine that!

No, Obama Didn’t Win 108 Percent of the Vote in an Ohio County
By Robert Schlesinger

November 20, 2012 RSS Feed Print The top petition on the White House's "We the People" website is, as has been widely reported, a request to let the state of Texas peacefully secede from the Union and form its own government. But the second most popular petition at the moment (just edging out an appeal to legalize marijuana) is a call to "recount the election!" on the grounds that Obama benefited from voter fraud in Ohio. (Spoiler alert: He didn't.)

Here's the argument in the petition, which as of this writing has nearly 63,000 signatures:

It has become blatantly obvious the voter fraud that was committed during the 2012 Presidential elections. In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes...but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It's not humanly possible to get 108% of the vote!

If ID laws had been enforced (which the administration is completely against because that meant they would lose) then this wouldn't be an issue.

Recount NOW!
[Read the U.S. News Debate: Does Barack Obama Have a Mandate?]

Well that would certainly be something, wouldn't it? If only there was some sort of independent ability to check the facts in the petition. Enter PolitiFact.com's Ohio branch, which does a typically hyperthorough job of dismantling the assertion. They trace the rumor to a blog post identifying Wood County, Ohio as the location of the 108 percent voter turnout. It seems that Wood County is home to Bowling Green college, which goes a long way toward accounting for the discrepancy between the Census-determined voting age population (98,213) and the number of registered voters (106,258 in September, 108,014 in November): Students aren't necessarily counted in the census and are also naturally transient meaning that there are a large number of inactive voters on the rolls (there are apparently a little more than 80,000 active voters in Wood County).

For the record, President Obama won 31,596 votes out of 62,338 cast in the county, around 51 percent. "The petition's claim that Obama somehow managed to collect that many votes is not only demonstrably false, it's ridiculous," PolitiFact concludes before awarding the petition its coveted "Pants on Fire" rating.

[See photos of Obama Behind the Scenes.]

I rather like the idea behind the "We the People" website, though this once again shows the limitation inherent in such exercises of direct democracy: There's no threshold of credibility or civic awareness. My colleague Elizabeth Flock provides another example over at Washington Whispers—a petition calling for Obama's impeachment … when the executive branch doesn't have that power.

Oh and one other thing for the conspiracy theorists to ponder: Even if Romney had won Ohio, Obama would still have won the election.

For the past few years (http://www.snopescom/ has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behindsnopes.com . Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valleyof California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues. A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com . In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place.

I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg'scontact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson's are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.

Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact 'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelson's do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com , ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about Snopes.com . A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it Is true. Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.

At the end of the day, you just can't be sure. Double check Snopes against all of your local and national

Gotta love the Rushtard, posts a one page article that gives one example of where Snopes has been wrong in the last ten years, and yet Snopes has constantly made a fool of his articles. Maybe he should find a better resource than reading newsletters from an admitted drug junkie.

Gotta love the Rushtard, posts a one page article that gives one example of where Snopes has been wrong in the last ten years, and yet Snopes has constantly made a fool of his articles. Maybe he should find a better resource than reading newsletters from an admitted drug junkie.

What's with you and the retard/rushtard stuff? Or is that just the best you can do?